Nagaland’s customary system of land ownership is a foundation of its society and identity and deserves protection. But the recent revelation that 10 government projects have been foreclosed, with sanctioned funds surrendered amid delays and landowner-related problems, raises a difficult question: can a legitimate land right become so absolute that it deprives an entire community of development?
The issue is not whether landowners should have rights. They should. The harder question arises when construction remains blocked because an individual or group refuses to allow it to proceed.
The recent Assembly discussion brought landowner-related disputes into sharp focus. The Mayangnokcha GHSS project, for instance, had to be closed over a landowner issue, resulting in approximately Rs 101.67 lakh being refunded to the North Eastern Council. The loss is not merely financial. The community lost infrastructure that had already been sanctioned.
Yet this cannot be reduced to a story of unreasonable landowners obstructing development. Land ownership in Nagaland is deeply rooted in customary systems, while much of the state’s land is privately or communally owned. Landowners therefore have every right to demand clarity over ownership, compensation and terms of use. Those rights must not be weakened in the name of development.
But rights also exist within a community. Where land is governed through customary institutions and community relationships, rights cannot reasonably be separated from responsibilities. If a community needs a road, school, hospital or other public facility, landowners should not be able to hold development hostage indefinitely.
This does not mean weakening customary rights. Rather, those rights must be respected while ensuring they do not make public projects impossible.
The government, too, cannot place the entire burden on landowners. The Assembly discussion showed that delays also resulted from administrative approvals, tendering, technical processes and contractor performance. Departments sometimes failed to process approvals and tenders on time even after funds were sanctioned. Responsibility is therefore reciprocal.
The government must settle land ownership and compensation before sanctioning projects. Landowners, meanwhile, must recognise that development for the public good cannot be obstructed indefinitely.
Nagaland must balance the right to land and the right to development. Article 371A protects Naga rights over land and resources and must never be portrayed as an obstacle to development. Equally, development must not become an excuse to disregard those rights.
The solution is to settle land ownership, compensation and terms of use before a project is sanctioned or implementation begins, through a clear mechanism involving landowners and customary institutions. Once legitimate claims are settled and an agreement reached, public-interest projects should not be allowed to remain indefinitely stalled.
When a sanctioned project disappears, the landowner gets no compensation, the government gets no project, and the public gets nothing.
That is not the protection of customary rights. That is a failure of the social contract, and it should concern landowners, government and the public alike.
